The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

The IFP finds it outrageous that Nersa would grant Eskom a tariff
increase of 45% each year for three years. This follows the tariff
increase of 27% last year and 31,3% this year. As related to the
original base this means an overall tariff increase of 508,4% over
four years. The people of South Africa cannot afford this.

It is outrageous that the people of South Africa had no say in this
form of indirect taxation without representation. When Eskom appeared
before the Portfolio Committee it was allowed to refuse to tell
Parliament how large a tariff increase it was requesting and to
withhold a copy of its application to Nersa, even though the same
application had been given to Salga and other stakeholders. Parliament
could not debate this fundamental matter and was labouring under the
impression created by press reports that a once-off 40% increase was
being discussed.

This is nothing short of contempt of Parliament, the sovereignty of
the people and the basic tenets of democracy. The people must now pay
and shut-up, with no recourse. It is almost grounds for a tax revolt.

In fact this is a tariff increase in name only. In substance it is the
mechanism through which a capital and infrastructure expansion
programme will be funded. It could have been funded by other means,
including a direct contribution through the Treasury by means of
taxation, in which case the people would have had a say through the
budgetary process and taxation would have been fair. This hidden form
of taxation is unfair and unjust, because it is inherently regressive,
forcing the poor to pay more than the rich.

This tariff increase will deepen our economic crisis as it will
translate into an across-the-board increase in the cost of all goods
and services with a compounding domino effect of foreseeable
skyrocketing inflation. If the Government was trying to give a crutch
to our stumbling economy, this act of folly kicks the crutch away.

There are other available options which have not even been considered,
such as joint venturing with international finance corporations, or an
international tender to create a duopoly with another entity to be
funded by foreign electricity companies. We have maintained the old
apartheid model of a monopolistic electricity generator, resorting to
the dwindling finances of the middle class and small businesses to
fund its voracious financial needs.

It is regrettable that there are no significant debates on this issue,
which contributes to pacifying public opinion in the despair of
impotence. On this, as on many other occasions, the SABC has fallen
short of its responsibility; and we call on it to have a series of
public debates at least amongst Members of Parliament to partially
replace the failures of our democratic system to adequately air this
matter, which has instead been dealt with behind closed doors.